Policy —

No net neutrality plan from Congress, so now what?

Two days before Congress shuts down, the Republican leadership has shut down …

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has thrown in the towel on net neutrality—at least for now. The Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee says he can't get any Republican support for his widely reported draft legislation on Open Internet rules.

"With great regret, I must report that Ranking Member Barton [R-TX] has informed me that support for this legislation will not be forthcoming at this time," Waxman declared in a statement sent to the press. "This development is a loss for consumers and a gain only for the extremes. We need to break the deadlock on net neutrality so that we can focus on building the most open and robust Internet possible."

No threats

Leaked press versions of the draft proposal bore considerable resemblance to the Google/Verizon net neutrality plan. By those reports, the bill would have forbidden ISPs to "unjustly or unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful traffic over a consumer's wireline broadband Internet access service" and given the FCC some "case-by-case" fine making authority (up to $2 million a ding). But it would have denied the agency any authority to regulate ISPs as common carriers, and excluded wireless broadband from the scenario.

It appears, however, that the draft proposal had support from various public interest groups, including the Consumer Federation of America, and was less Verizon-Google-like than represented. Here's how Waxman characterized the legislation in his press release (note that wireless is included in his summary). It would

Restore the FCC's authority to prevent blocking of Internet content, applications, and services, which was struck down by the court in the Comcast decision;

Prevent phone and cable companies from unjustly or unreasonably discriminating against any lawful Internet traffic;

Prohibit wireless broadband providers from blocking websites, as well as applications that compete with voice or video conferencing, while preserving the FCC's authority to adopt additional safeguards under its existing authorities; and

Direct the FCC to issue transparency regulations so consumers know the price, performance, and network management practices of their broadband providers.

Under our proposal, the FCC could begin enforcing these open Internet rules immediately - with maximum fines increased from $75,000 to $2,000,000 for violations.

"And," Waxman added, "our approach would provide the phone and cable companies with protection from the threat of reclassification for two years." Presumably this referred to the prospect of reclassifying ISPs as "Title II" common carriers, as per the Telecommunications Act. The FCC proposed that measure some months ago, to the outrage of cable and telco ISPs.

Halfway punt

Why did Barton refuse to support this proposal? He's got a statement on the Republican side of the House Commerce Committee website.

"I have consulted with Republican leadership and members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and there is a widespread view that there is not sufficient time to ensure that Chairman Waxman's proposal will keep the Internet open without chilling innovation and job creation," Barton explained.

"If the majority wants to work on a solution to continue a free and open Internet, let's consider the issue deliberately, rather than punting with a halfway measure two days before the end of Congress."

Indeed, over the last two days most GOP folk on Capitol Hill have pretty much gone Tea Party on the Waxman plan (whatever it actually was at any given moment). For instance, one Rep called it an "attempt to control commercial activity over the Internet before [the Democrats] lose control of Congress."

No closed doors

As for Waxman, he seems ok about the whole thing.

"I do not close the door on moving legislation this Congress," his press statement concluded. "Cooler heads may prevail after the elections. But I want my position to be clear: my goal is the best outcome for consumers. If our efforts to find bipartisan consensus fail, the FCC should move forward under Title II. The bottom line is that we must protect the open Internet. If Congress can't act, the FCC must."

This development definitely drives this clunker back to the FCC's garage. The Commission has been kicking the net neutrality ball down the road for months. The matter is noticeably absent from the agency's October Open Commission meeting, as it was in September.

And public interest groups are already making the obvious point. If Congress can't deal with this question, it's time for the FCC to punt.

"We are in full agreement with Chairman Waxman that the FCC must act now to protect consumers by reinstating its authority over broadband," declared Gigi Sohn at Public Knowledge. "We can wait no longer. We expect those members of Congress who argued that it was Congress' duty to set telecommunications policy would recognize the authority of the FCC in the absence of legislation."

Matthew Lasar
Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Emailmatthew.lasar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@matthewlasar

59 Reader Comments

Forcing Tier-II status on the ISPs would do nothing to hamper innovation or job creation. In fact, it'd secure innovation as the ISPs wouldn't be allowed to fuck over possible competitors, who will thus stay in business and possibly grow, creating more jobs.

Their "but innovation! but jobs!" just stinks of a rotting red herring.

"We can wait no longer. We expect those members of Congress who argued that it was Congress' duty to set telecommunications policy would recognize the authority of the FCC in the absence of legislation."

This isn't how the government works. Public Knowledge needs a lesson in civics.

Commissions don't set policies on things outside it's jurisdiction because Congress won't give them the jurisdiction to set the policies.

Forcing Tier-II status on the ISPs would do nothing to hamper innovation or job creation. In fact, it'd secure innovation as the ISPs wouldn't be allowed to fuck over possible competitors, who will thus stay in business and possibly grow, creating more jobs.

Their "but innovation! but jobs!" just stinks of a rotting red herring.

These are republicans the only thing they're worried about it hampering is their campaign contributions.

Only thing worse is the idiots who believe the tripe that they put out.

This is obviously the fault of the Republicans. The Democrats control the white house, the House, and the Senate and yet Ars and the rest of the media blame the current legislative roadblocks on the Republicans.

Just yesterday I saw the mainstream news showing a clip of Obama giving a speech blaming the Republicans for the deficit right now. I have no problem going back three years and blaming legislative and budget problems on the Republicans, but why on earth is the media giving the Democrats such a free ride?

If you want net neutrality, how about we throw out all the incumbents? If we want to eliminate the deficit, why not throw out all of the incumbents? Re-electing these shills will bring nothing but the same old problems.

This is obviously the fault of the Republicans. The Democrats control the white house, the House, and the Senate and yet Ars and the rest of the media blame the current legislative roadblocks on the Republicans.

The Republican party holds just enough of a minority that if they all toe the party line they can pretty much stall any and all legislation proposed. Indeed, they have been playing hard-line obstructionist and whipping out the filibuster card almost constantly. I believe they are still holding up a number of Obama's appointments, are they not?

Quote:

Just yesterday I saw the mainstream news showing a clip of Obama giving a speech blaming the Republicans for the deficit right now. I have no problem going back three years and blaming legislative and budget problems on the Republicans, but why on earth is the media giving the Democrats such a free ride?

They do not have the power to unilaterally pass things. Attempts have been made to be bipartisan, from what I can see, however the end result has been temper tantrums and the kibosh of a lot of legislation as of late.

Quote:

If you want net neutrality, how about we throw out all the incumbents? If we want to eliminate the deficit, why not throw out all of the incumbents? Re-electing these shills will bring nothing but the same old problems.

Yes, but you tell that to the idiots who vote the Whatever party because their Pappy voted Whatever and their grandpappy voted Whatever and... oh and all the single issue voters who are easily lied to.

This is obviously the fault of the Republicans. The Democrats control the white house, the House, and the Senate and yet Ars and the rest of the media blame the current legislative roadblocks on the Republicans.

Just yesterday I saw the mainstream news showing a clip of Obama giving a speech blaming the Republicans for the deficit right now. I have no problem going back three years and blaming legislative and budget problems on the Republicans, but why on earth is the media giving the Democrats such a free ride?

If you want net neutrality, how about we throw out all the incumbents? If we want to eliminate the deficit, why not throw out all of the incumbents? Re-electing these shills will bring nothing but the same old problems.

Because Democrats have had to spend money repairing the damage that the Republicans have done.

Before the Bush Administration the US had a budget surplus under clinton.

The problem with our government is that it is full of politicians. I'm seriously starting to hate partisan politics. Half our government is voting for big businesses and the other half is grandstanding for the general populous.

Something is wrong with our governmnet, but darn if I can think of any way to fix it, short of requiring a certain level of education to serve (looking towards economics, not psychology). Either that or a certain level of education to vote. But then that isn't being fair either. Dang it, I don't know how we can fix it. Maybe just let computers rule us all... as long as I get to program them.

The fat lady sung, kids. Give it up for now. There will be a time and a place to take this up again. It won't be today, it won't be tomorrow.

The partisan crap and president bashing has nothing to do with it, but the people not paying attention will espouse republican/democrat hate rhetoric to obscure the point further: Large corporations own the internet and can marginalize/shut out anyone they wish, no matter who you voted for or what you've done for them, and any further bills that are passed for the Internet will further that single goal because Democrat or Republican, anyone can be bought.

I just hope the next time we read a story about this, it's not because Net Neutrality is banned from the United States by a majority in both houses after overriding a veto from President Obama.

Isn't it funny when there's something that affects all the citizens negatively and costs us money, it goes right the hell through, but when it affects big business it's shot down before a vote happens?

The problem with our government is that it is full of politicians. I'm seriously starting to hate partisan politics. Half our government is voting for big businesses and the other half is grandstanding for the general populous.

Your sorta right.

100% of the government is grandstanding for the general populous.100% of the government is working for big business.

When are people going to get their heads out of their asses and realize that the politicians are only in for their own gain and that the people that run and own th big business are the same people that run the government?

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is the difference between which big business they have investments in and get pay-offs from.

It's 100% totally self serving and everything they are telling you is a lie. Even the network neutrality is a lie.

It's not about making sure that you can get your bulk downloads done faster, it's about setting precedent of government control over the internet.

Unlike most of the anti-republican morons here that don't pay attention to anything that is beyond Reddit and Colbert Report I know for a fact that the Obama administration has done far more to push wiretapping policies then George Bush ever did. This is not 'oh your just in the pocket of big business'. This is a fact. This is documented several times over by many different people using documents going in and out of the oval office. Signed papers and pushing to lower the proof of burden for warrantless wiretapping.

This is not conspiracy bullshit. It's all done in the open and nothing is a secret because they know that nobody will care and the majority of the voting public is so blind and subservient that they will believe anything that they are told.

Formerly reserved for totalitarian countries, this wholesale surveillance of citizens has moved into the democratic world as well. Governments like Sweden, Canada and the United Kingdom are debating or passing laws giving their police new powers of internet surveillance, in many cases requiring communications system providers to redesign products and services they sell. More are passing data retention laws, forcing companies to retain customer data in case they might need to be investigated later.

Obama isn't the first U.S. president to seek expanded digital eavesdropping. The 1994 CALEA law required phone companies to build ways to better facilitate FBI eavesdropping into their digital phone switches. Since 2001, the National Security Agency has built substantial eavesdropping systems within the United States.

Whether or not the regulation is, Eliminating the ability for the public to securely communicate without government eavesdropping, Network Neutrality, Making the internet safe for children/fighting child porn trafficking... The goal is always going to be the same:

Put the government in charge of regulating the internet so that people in the government can get more power and more influence and the friends of whatever political party is in power gets a better chance at getting bigger profits with lesser risk.

The difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that the when the Republicans get into power they make more money and get more power, but when the Democrats are in power they are the ones that get more money and more power. Either way your getting lied to and your getting screwed over.

It's all about getting into office then figuring out the best way to game the system and scam the public until you get kicked out 4-8 years from now.

The reasons the FCC hasn't acted are political, not legal. The FCC already has the legal authority for net neutrality under Title II; Congress only got involved because the issue is so high profile. In the absence of specific new legislation, the FCC can move forward on its "Third Way" approach, which has a solid legal foundation (recognizing that broadband is a "telecommunications service" where the FCC has clear authority to regulate, and not an "information service").

The Congress that actually passed a law giving the FCC authority (the Telecom Act of 1996 was the last long look at this) is the one that matters. If later Congresses want to take that authority away they can, but the usual procedure is not a bunch of dueling press releases from different sides of the aisle.

While perhaps unsurprising, one of the changes that has bothered me the most, recently, was the decision to allow corporations to make campaign contributions as individuals. I cannot see any benefit to the public through this. Corporate interests will be better represented and, as a disproportionate amount of the public wealth lies in corporate coffers, they will be able to "purchase" a disproportionately high amount of representation for their policies.

Something is wrong with our governmnet, but darn if I can think of any way to fix it,

My completely uninformed opinion is to get rid of the partisan voting as best as possible. Ban the posting of party affiliation on ballots (if people want to vote pure partisan, they'll at least have to put in the effort to look up the freaking people they're voting for). Ban posting of any partisan information at election sites. Limit Congress so that only 1/5th of the total seats may be alloted to affiliated members of any one particular party (no limit for independents), and make it a crime to hide one's party affiliation and a crime to form "spin-off" puppet parties, to prevent people from circumventing this restriction.

Combine this with the Fair Elections Act, which goes a long way towards removing the influence of party on campaign funding and management.

Actually, just the Fair Elections Act is all I'm really worried about right now. Get that passed and I think a lot of good will come of it. There are further reforms that will help a ton, but that's more important. The government can never put the interest of the people first so long as it literally requires millions and millions of dollars to get elected (and yes, that's _mandatory_ to get elected, as it's impossible to get your name and message out to your average American voter without a shitload of spending on TV ads and the like -- sad but still true).

I suppose we should look at it as if the government is, simply, another sort of corporation. The taxpayers are their (captive) customers. They've chosen with which corporate interests it is in their best interest to align themselves. (The citizenry is NOT the corporate interest the government regulators have chosen.)

The net's not neutral? The FCC says, "Naw, yer just holding it wrong."

Just what is the crisis that makes a solution for network neutrality such an acute requirement. It is a tenth rate issue in a wold where first rate issues typically fester, Plus it supports a full employment policy for all those who make their living arguing about ideology and can't find anything more significant to justify their pay check.

This is obviously the fault of the Republicans. The Democrats control the white house, the House, and the Senate and yet Ars and the rest of the media blame the current legislative roadblocks on the Republicans.

Just yesterday I saw the mainstream news showing a clip of Obama giving a speech blaming the Republicans for the deficit right now. I have no problem going back three years and blaming legislative and budget problems on the Republicans, but why on earth is the media giving the Democrats such a free ride?

If you want net neutrality, how about we throw out all the incumbents? If we want to eliminate the deficit, why not throw out all of the incumbents? Re-electing these shills will bring nothing but the same old problems.

Sometimes the devil you know, ....No one wants another experience like the Bush administration.

"Indeed, over the last two days most GOP folk on Capitol Hill have pretty much gone Tea Party on the Waxman plan"

Why don't they go all Tea Party on Defense spending? If you're against taxes why are you for some types of spending and not others. Most likely I just need to read up on the confused ideas the Tea Party has.

"I have consulted with Republican leadership and members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and there is a widespread view that there is not sufficient time to ensure that Chairman Waxman's proposal will keep the Internet open without chilling innovation and job creation,"

A pretty lightweight proposal might stifle innovation, yet there are no concerns about software patents which are chilling innovation and job creation in these same areas... More like they're working on reelection and they can't be bothered by something that may actually help their voters.

The problem with our government is that it is full of politicians. I'm seriously starting to hate partisan politics. Half our government is voting for big businesses and the other half is grandstanding for the general populous.

Your sorta right.

100% of the government is grandstanding for the general populous.100% of the government is working for big business.

When are people going to get their heads out of their asses and realize that the politicians are only in for their own gain and that the people that run and own th big business are the same people that run the government?

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is the difference between which big business they have investments in and get pay-offs from.

It's 100% totally self serving and everything they are telling you is a lie. Even the network neutrality is a lie.

It's not about making sure that you can get your bulk downloads done faster, it's about setting precedent of government control over the internet.

Unlike most of the anti-republican morons here that don't pay attention to anything that is beyond Reddit and Colbert Report I know for a fact that the Obama administration has done far more to push wiretapping policies then George Bush ever did. This is not 'oh your just in the pocket of big business'. This is a fact. This is documented several times over by many different people using documents going in and out of the oval office. Signed papers and pushing to lower the proof of burden for warrantless wiretapping.

This is not conspiracy bullshit. It's all done in the open and nothing is a secret because they know that nobody will care and the majority of the voting public is so blind and subservient that they will believe anything that they are told.

Formerly reserved for totalitarian countries, this wholesale surveillance of citizens has moved into the democratic world as well. Governments like Sweden, Canada and the United Kingdom are debating or passing laws giving their police new powers of internet surveillance, in many cases requiring communications system providers to redesign products and services they sell. More are passing data retention laws, forcing companies to retain customer data in case they might need to be investigated later.

Obama isn't the first U.S. president to seek expanded digital eavesdropping. The 1994 CALEA law required phone companies to build ways to better facilitate FBI eavesdropping into their digital phone switches. Since 2001, the National Security Agency has built substantial eavesdropping systems within the United States.

Whether or not the regulation is, Eliminating the ability for the public to securely communicate without government eavesdropping, Network Neutrality, Making the internet safe for children/fighting child porn trafficking... The goal is always going to be the same:

Put the government in charge of regulating the internet so that people in the government can get more power and more influence and the friends of whatever political party is in power gets a better chance at getting bigger profits with lesser risk.

The difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that the when the Republicans get into power they make more money and get more power, but when the Democrats are in power they are the ones that get more money and more power. Either way your getting lied to and your getting screwed over.

It's all about getting into office then figuring out the best way to game the system and scam the public until you get kicked out 4-8 years from now.

Why are you such a pessimist? You live in the best country in the world with the best system of government, and the best economic system. Don't be so ungrateful. You live in the most ideal place at the most ideal time of all human history. And you believe in the words "this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Americans must love and respect the elected officials of this government. They voted them in. It's their choice.

It's a good thing this was killed. Any net neutrality legislation is going to be worthless if it doesn't include wireless internet.

Well, first, according to the story you theoretically just read, the Waxman plan would

Quote:

Prohibit wireless broadband providers from blocking websites, as well as applications that compete with voice or video conferencing, while preserving the FCC's authority to adopt additional safeguards under its existing authorities

Second, it looks like for the near future we will continue to have no net neutrality protections for wireless _and_ wired connections. This really is a victory for net neutrality, you're right.

Just what is the crisis that makes a solution for network neutrality such an acute requirement. It is a tenth rate issue in a wold where first rate issues typically fester, Plus it supports a full employment policy for all those who make their living arguing about ideology and can't find anything more significant to justify their pay check.

I've yet to hear a good answer to the question about why it's such a crisis necessitating legislation or sweeping new FCC policy. Thus far, there is no crisis. ISP's offenses against the present de facto net neutrality rules are so few and far between that each example is shrieked over because there's otherwise nothing ... and every actual examples I've heard about is related to activity the ISP's prohibit anyway. It's kind of like how every airliner crash makes news because they're so rare, yet the continual carnage (and greater associated risks) on the roads and highways barely interest anyone.

The issue needs to be settled, otherwise no one is going to invest serious money in the broadband rollouts that the Net Neutrality crowd is genrerally screaming for at the same time. Waxman's proposal is a joke - two years' protection against re-classification as a common carrier? Takes closer to ten to begin to recover the capital cost of infrastructure, dude, and if the rules might change in two, that's uncertainty - a very bad thing when your timelines exceed the window of reasonable certainty.

I do find it funny that the industries opposed to net neutrality are labelled as greedhead monopolists who are only interested in screwing the general public for another couple of bucks per head while the industries supporting it are credited for altruistically supporting a cause out of the goodness of their hearts. Yeah, right. Google, Facebook, and the rest of the Open Internet Coalition see dollars at their end of the Net Neutrality rainbow (funny how Google wants to get into the infrastructure business but has yet to lay a mile of their wunder-fiber - waiting for their friends in Washington to produce results?). The FCC sees something to hang onto in order to continue to justify their existence (and maintain their budget).

Worried about the ISP's abusing their control of the pipes to screw competitors? Sounds like the sort of thing that the FTC has been handling for decades... Aw, snap - no need for the FCC to grow its largess after all!

As for "killing manned space exploration", NASA did not even have a sound and fiscally responsible plan for manned space exploration. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Programs to the moon and mars cost money, money which we don't have.

Indeed, over the last two days most GOP folk on Capitol Hill have pretty much gone Tea Party on the Waxman plan (whatever it actually was at any given moment). For instance, one Rep called it an "attempt to control commercial activity over the Internet before [the Democrats] lose control of Congress."

This is so ridiculous. True Net Neutrality has the potential to be one of the greatest driving forces that support actual free market principles for at least the next few decades. The kinds of opportunities that it will both create and preserve for individuals and small businesses to actually stand a chance at competing against the business titans throughout the planet is massive.

It is a real shame that some people who do not really know what NN have been either convinced or bought by industries which seek to maintain their monopolies and oligopolies over information and communication.

The Republican party holds just enough of a minority that if they all toe the party line they can pretty much stall any and all legislation proposed.

The Democrat party holds a majority and if they all toe the party line they can pretty much pass any and all legislation proposed.

There, fixed it for you.

Dems have never had an actual super majority in the Senate over the past 2 years.

A super majority means nothing when you have teams of blue dog Dems who either vote or negotiate along the same view points of their Republicans counterparts for over 75% of their voting record. I don't understand how some of them can even consider themselves members of the Democratic party.

This is obviously the fault of the Republicans. The Democrats control the white house, the House, and the Senate and yet Ars and the rest of the media blame the current legislative roadblocks on the Republicans.

The Republican party holds just enough of a minority that if they all toe the party line they can pretty much stall any and all legislation proposed. Indeed, they have been playing hard-line obstructionist and whipping out the filibuster card almost constantly. I believe they are still holding up a number of Obama's appointments, are they not?

The problem for the Democrats that is being so artfully danced around is that all of the Democrats aren't on board, either. It's guaranteed that whenever a party line vote comes up that the Democrats lose, they blame the Republicans and make no mention of the Democrats who jumped ship--as if they didn't count. Of course, since the Dems do currently control both the executive and legislative branches of government they could theoretically pass whatever they wanted. But, there are many centrist Democrats and even a few on the right who cringe every time the Democratic left-wing fringe of the party makes a proposal. And please--about Executive appointments--in times past the Democrats have acted scurrilously in opposing and derailing Republican nominees. It's pretty darn stupid that both parties make these appointments slaves to political propaganda, and in the process create a media circus, but they always have.

Quote:

Quote:

Just yesterday I saw the mainstream news showing a clip of Obama giving a speech blaming the Republicans for the deficit right now. I have no problem going back three years and blaming legislative and budget problems on the Republicans, but why on earth is the media giving the Democrats such a free ride?They do not have the power to unilaterally pass things. Attempts have been made to be bipartisan, from what I can see, however the end result has been temper tantrums and the kibosh of a lot of legislation as of late.

Whenever either political party holds a majority in the House and the Senate, they most certainly do have the theoretical ability to "pass things unilaterally." In such cases, the failure to do so rests not with the minority party, but with the fact not everybody in the majority party can agree to support the proposed legislation. "Bipartisan attempts" are made by the majority party whenever it discovers that a proposed piece of legislation doesn't have the support of enough majority-party members to ensure passage.

Quote:

Quote:

If you want net neutrality, how about we throw out all the incumbents? If we want to eliminate the deficit, why not throw out all of the incumbents? Re-electing these shills will bring nothing but the same old problems.Yes, but you tell that to the idiots who vote the Whatever party because their Pappy voted Whatever and their grandpappy voted Whatever and... oh and all the single issue voters who are easily lied to.

Oh, come on... "Blaming the Republicans" for everything that has transpired since the Democrats captured a majority in the the Senate and the House, which if memory serves occurred two years before George Bush's last tern ended, simply points out how utterly bankrupt the present administration and Congressional leadership is when it comes to conceiving of legislation that resonates with the American electorate. This entire topic revolves around the fact that Democrats are approaching an imminent election and have reached the conclusion that perhaps many of their proposals are nowhere near as popular with the voters as they had originally fantasized.

If you want net neutrality, how about we throw out all the incumbents? If we want to eliminate the deficit, why not throw out all of the incumbents? Re-electing these shills will bring nothing but the same old problems.

Hear hear! But in all seriousness, putting a term limit (and maybe a maximum age limit), on these living chair mats would be a very smart move, but one that probably won't ever happen. Not only that, but the enmity between political parties, and the possible loss of personal gains, prevents anything of value from ever really passing, so don't expect to see net neutrality plans in action any time soon.

Seriously, the actions of our current government, the house and senate specifically, make an amazing case for just booting all of them out and electing brand new folks with no government experience and a better understanding of what the citizens of this country (and not the corporations), want and need. Then maybe we could see some good legislation to support a free internet, and less intellectual property and patent law B/S.

Hear hear! But in all seriousness, putting a term limit (and maybe a maximum age limit), on these living chair mats would be a very smart move, but one that probably won't ever happen. Not only that, but the enmity between political parties, and the possible loss of prevents anything of value from ever really passing, so don't expect to see net neutrality plans in action any time soon.

I've always believed term limits to be a great idea. But like you I am skeptical of such limits ever coming to pass. Asking professional politicians in Congress to support legislation that guarantees they can no longer be "professional" Congressmen is like asking lawyers to support limits on litigation awards.

Quote:

Seriously, the actions of our current government, the house and senate specifically, make an amazing case for just booting all of them out and electing brand new folks with no government experience and a better understanding of what the citizens of this country (and not the corporations), want and need. Then maybe we could see some good legislation to support a free internet, and less intellectual property and patent law B/S.

Don't you think it ironic that the same Democrats who ostensibly champion "network neutrality" but then can't pass any legislation pertaining to that topic, are the same politicians who stand firmly behind the RIAA? It's because they play politics with everything--which is why they've kicked "network neutrality" back to the FCC when the FCC has already been shot down in court--and because their ultimate goal is not to pass legislation good for the country but rather their goal is simply to get reelected. If that means "promise them anything to get a vote but give them nothing," then so be it. They can live quite well with that sentiment. The argument for term limits rarely gets much better than this.

The Republican party holds just enough of a minority that if they all toe the party line they can pretty much stall any and all legislation proposed. Indeed, they have been playing hard-line obstructionist and whipping out the filibuster card almost constantly. I believe they are still holding up a number of Obama's appointments, are they not?

That's true in the Senate, but I don't believe that's the case in the House, which is what we're talking about with respect to Waxman's bill.

Quote:

They do not have the power to unilaterally pass things. Attempts have been made to be bipartisan, from what I can see, however the end result has been temper tantrums and the kibosh of a lot of legislation as of late.

Again, you're talking about the Senate, not the House

Quote:

Yes, but you tell that to the idiots who vote the Whatever party because their Pappy voted Whatever and their grandpappy voted Whatever and... oh and all the single issue voters who are easily lied to.

Ah yes, that stupid electorate who can't be trusted to make the "right" decisions. Thank goodness there are Libs out there who are more than happy to pull the voting lever on their behalf . . .